In an English court a man named Home was tried for slander in having accused a neighbour of murder. Home’s exact words were: “Sir Thomas Holt hath taken a cleaver and stricken his cook upon the head, so that one side of the head fell upon one shoulder and the other side upon the other shoulder.” The defendant was acquitted by instruction of the court, the learned judges holding that Home’s words did not charge murder, for they did not affirm the death of the cook, and that the cook’s death was only an inference.
Ambrose Bierce, the 19th century American satirist, wrote those lines on legal technicality more than a hundred years ago. These lines remain ever green today as well, because whether one likes it or not, such is the nature of legal technicalities; they can sway in any direction.
In the case of Nawaz Sharif’s disqualification, it was a different form of legal technicality that ousted him, that being an intended or unintended non-declaration of a salary receivable (as ceremonial Chairman of a UAE-based firm) even as no charges of corruption made under the original petition were proven against him.
The court’s decision based on this so-called ‘minor mistake’ and the fact that the investigation team comprised of military agency, has not been well received by the international media. Their argument can be summarized as follows: (a) Pakistan’s military is known for coups and toppling elected governments and the usage of article 62 by the court is another trick up the establishment’s sleeve to topple an elected government again. And (b) because the establishment is no saint either but de facto enjoys being above law, the democratically elected politicians should be treated with a lenient hand.
The New York Times op-ed by Aqil Shah, a US-based South Asia academic, wrote: “neither Justice Chaudhry nor any other judge prosecuted a single military official for human rights violations. When a senior intelligence officer was charged with kidnapping a civilian, the court restrained the police from executing arrest warrants out of the “respect of an institution.”
Similar sentiments were echoed by Katherine Adeney, a British scholar on south-Asia. She said: “although the removal of corrupt politicians is good for a democratic system, massive instability and the weakening of political parties who have just begun to stand up to the military is not. This story is still unfolding, but, as in Pakistan’s past, weak politicians and a weak party system will only strengthen the military.”
Bloomberg opined “Nawaz is not a saint”, but “Sharif’s defeat and the triumph of [Imran] Khan and his backers in the military is, seen this way, not good news for anyone. It’s bad for Pakistan, where democracy seems constantly to struggle to take root; and it’s bad for India, where many trusted the business-friendly and pragmatic Sharif would manage to outwit the army, take greater control of the country’s foreign policy and become a reliable partner for peace.”
What most international op-eds miss is that if the people’s representatives really wanted to remove the articles 62-63, or remove their ambiguity, they would have done so at the time of 18th Amendment when they dealt with other controversial elements such as the article 58(2)(b).
Second just because the establishment may be untouchable, does that mean that elected representatives should also be untouchables by the law. And if that is so, then by the same token, should the law be also lenient for ordinary citizens or at least big businesses because of their importance to the economy. Surely there will be no end to this thinking, it being a recipe for disaster.
This column does not support overt or covert military coups. But in the battle of people versus any kind of martial law, the strongest cards people’s representatives may have is being upright, truthful, honest and truly democratic. All other cards are stacked against them, for at any given point in time the military is more organized and stronger than the civilian leadership.
As this newspaper’s editorial noted, justice contributes to a wider and stronger democracy. The spring cleaning begun this weekend should not end here. It should be extended across the political spectrum and across the four pillars of the state as well as the private citizenry. Those who want to escape the punitive reach of the law are best advised to avoid corruption or if they have done so in the past then they should wipe the slate clean. At the very least, whoever has not first dug a well, should not steal a minaret. That’s an old Arab saying, one which certain Arab residents should know very well.
Comments
Comments are closed.